Public wikis successfully operate on a basically democratic level. This doesn't mean that every decision is voted on, but in general, decisions on a wiki should be made by reaching a consensus whenever this is reasonably possible. The following guidelines are provided to help administrators exercise good judgment:
- Assume good faith
- When there's doubt about whether an edit was intended to help the wiki, assume it was and treat the editor that way. If an edit is obviously abusive, feel free to take appropriate action, but where's there is doubt, give the editor the benefit of that doubt.
- Administrate users, not content
- When it comes to the content of the wiki, the voice of an administrator should be treated as the equal of any other user. Administrators should only impose their opinions when the community fails to come to a reasonable consensus. Otherwise, administrators should try to get disagreeing users to discuss the situation. Administrators may offer their opinion as well, but they need to take care not to sound as though they're enforcing it.
- Be light-handed
- Try to settle problems with the minimum use of administrative powers reasonably possible. For example, if two editors keep reverting each others' edits on a page (edit warring), warn them and try to get them discussing it first. If that doesn't work, temporarily protecting the page might be a better option than blocking either editor, especially if it's just a matter of getting their attention. Try to use blocks as a last resort and warn first where possible.
- The above doesn't apply to spammers, but don't place indefinite blocks on anonymous users. IP addresses change over time and an indefinite block might eventually affect a legitimate editor. In most cases, blocking spammers is rarely very useful as they don't often spam more than once from the same IP, so it's usually best to just clean up the spam. If serious problems with spam crop up, bring it up with your wiki's Curse liaison.